"There's absolutely a new War on Terror... aimed inward, domestically."

There's absolutely a new War on Terror being initiated -- it'd been lurking for awhile, but it's accelerating now for obvious reasons. This new one is aimed inward, domestically. It entails many of the same frameworks.

They're saying it explicitly:https://t.co/TUkK0mmMxU pic.twitter.com/ygCLuTZe2C

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) January 8, 2021

The 7 most violence-inciting statements in Donald Trump's speech to the crowd on January 6th.

Here's the transcript. I read the entire speech — which was over an hour — looking for the sentences that are most subject to the interpretation that he was inciting the crowd to break into the Capitol building or commit any sort of act of violence. I'm doing this because I realized I wasn't seeing quotes from Trump, just assertions that the speech was an incitement and cause-and-effect inferences based on the sequence of events: He spoke and then they acted. 

There are places where he clearly talked about a peaceful protest march. He says: "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." And: "So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue... So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue."

But here are the 7 most violent statements. Please, if you can find anything more violent or more related to the idea of breaking into the Capitol and physically disrupting the proceedings, let me know, and I'll add it to the list. This is what I've found and have put in order from least to most violent:

7. We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong. 

6. To use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal…. We will not let them silence your voices.  

5. The Republicans have to get tougher. You’re not going to have a Republican party if you don’t get tougher.  

4. [W]e’re going to have somebody in there that should not be in there and our country will be destroyed, and we’re not going to stand for that.  

3. We will never give up. We will never concede, it doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved.

2. We’re not going to let it happen. Not going to let it happen. 

1. Together we are determined to defend and preserve government of the people, by the people and for the people. 

Twitter has "permanently suspended" Donald Trump "due to the risk of further incitement of violence."

After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence.https://t.co/CBpE1I6j8Y

— Twitter Safety (@TwitterSafety) January 8, 2021

ADDED: Here's a detailed explanation from Twitter, objecting to the 2 tweets Trump put up today (which we've been discussing here): "To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th" and "The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!" What's so bad about those?

According to Twitter, they violate the "Glorification of Violence policy." It doesn't seem to matter that the words don't refer to violence at all. They "could inspire others to replicate violent acts and determined that they were highly likely to encourage and inspire people to replicate the criminal acts that took place at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021." Twitter expresses fear that there could be violence at the Inauguration because Trump could be understood to be "disavowing his previous claim... that there would be an 'orderly transition' on January 20th." I hadn't thought about this, but Twitter offers the idea that violent Trump supporters could be incited by the information that Trump won't be present at the event! Strangely, Twitter may be giving some people that idea. I don't think I would have published it if I'd thought of it. 

At the Frozen Lake Café...

 

... you can talk all afternoon... but, once again, let's not use the café post to talk about Trump and the Trump resistance. As I did yesterday, I've given you 7 posts before lunch on Trump topics, so scroll down if you want to talk about that.

There's so much else in the world. Like all this ice. Have you fallen on the ice this winter? Have you slipped or tripped over anything recently? Did you put ice on it? Are your dreams becoming more detailed and interesting? Is your car holding up all right? Is the battery pesky? Could you — if your life depended on it — explain exactly how an internal combustion engine works? What is your favorite kind of hat? How good would a robot dog need to be before you'd pay $10,000 for one? What's your favorite lake?

Is it some notion that government officials deserve a higher level of personal security or an idea that the building that houses government is sacred?

Media were rightfully shocked when the People's House was vandalized. They should also be shocked when people's private homes and businesses are damaged in "peaceful protests."

— Gov. Bobby Jindal (@BobbyJindal) January 8, 2021

Trump says he won't attend the inauguration.

To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 8, 2021

Just before that tweet, there was this:

The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 8, 2021

And last night, this zombiesque performance:

pic.twitter.com/csX07ZVWGe

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 8, 2021

AND: Here's the transcript for that zombiesque performance. I saw some people calling this his "concession," but I listened and heard no concession: 

We have just been through an intense election and emotions are high, but now tempers must be cooled and calm restored. We must get on with the business of America. My campaign vigorously pursued every legal avenue to contest the election results. My only goal was to ensure the integrity of the vote.... Now Congress has certified the results. A new administration will be inaugurated on January 20th. My focus now turns to ensuring a smooth, orderly and seamless transition of power. This moment calls for healing and reconciliation.... We must revitalize the sacred bonds of love and loyalty that bind us together as one national family....

He's saying the process for challenging the result has concluded and he will not challenge it anymore. It's not that Biden really won, but that the process is really over. What exactly is "concession"? It's not a technical term. Nothing depends on it. It's a nicety. We want a particular locution... but why? Is it like saying "uncle"? 

From the Wikipedia article "Concession (politics)":

"Some of you will understand why. Some will not. I am sorry, but standing up for election integrity and our right to vote in fair elections is too important for me to not be there."

Said Jeff Taff, a high school social studies teacher, quoted in "Burlington teacher suspended after allegedly directing students to watch video questioning election results" (Wisconsin State Journal).

He told students he would be gone from school Tuesday through Thursday and planned to return Friday. In the online lesson plan, he directed students to review materials that included a video discussing debunked claims calling into question President-elect Biden’s victory in the Nov. 3 election over incumbent President Donald Trump....

"What was already shaping up as a volatile final stretch to the Trump presidency took on an air of national emergency as the White House emptied out and some Republicans joined Speaker Nancy Pelosi..."

"... and a cascade of Democrats calling for Mr. Trump to be removed from office without waiting the 13 days until the inauguration of President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. The prospect of actually short-circuiting Mr. Trump’s tenure in its last days appeared remote. Vice President Mike Pence privately ruled out invoking the disability clause of the 25th Amendment to sideline the president, as many had urged that he and the cabinet do, according to officials. Democrats suggested they could move quickly to impeachment, a step that would have its own logistical and political challenges. Representative Katherine Clark of Massachusetts, the assistant speaker of the House, said Friday on CNN that the Democrats could get an impeachment vote to the House floor as early as the middle of next week...."

The NYT reports. 

I'd like the Democrats — who have won — to show calm steadiness and grace, not crank things up to higher and higher hysteria! What was the point of dragging old man Biden to the fore and using him — rather than Sanders or Warren — to defeat Trump if not to rope in those of us who just want things to be sensible, moderate, and practical?!

I enjoyed the phrase "a cascade of Democrats" — it could be the collective noun, you know, like "murder of crows" and "exaltation of larks."

Biden won the election because people wanted calm, moderation, and normality.

But it's not enough that he may be a calm, moderate, normal person. He must lead. Where is he now? Can he show his supporters how to gracefully accede to power? Can he unite us? I want an aura of beneficence, dignity, and inclusion! 

5 days ago I noted the promise he made:

Here’s my promise to you: I’ll be a president for all Americans. Whether you voted for me or not, I’ll wake up every single morning and work to make your life better.

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) January 3, 2021

Commenters mocked me for "believing" this promise. I said (in the comments):

I believe that he made the promise. That's what matters. I will hold him to it and link back to this post whenever I need to. It doesn't matter whether you trust a politician to do what he says. You should still note the promises that are made so you can judge the performance. 

I'm judging.  

When liberals decide men must be in control of their wife...

Clarence Thomas should be impeached over this. Yes, these posts were from his wife, not himself, but having a far-right conspiracy provocateur wife who says "GOD BLESS YOU" to seditious terrorists should unequivocally disqualify any SCOTUS justice. https://t.co/BT3de6UbVV

— Tami Burages (@tburages) January 8, 2021

ADDED: Did the wife do something that should be considered an impeachable offense? It strikes me as very similar to praising the Black Live Matter protests despite the riots that emerged from them. Either we think big street protests are great or we think they risk devolution into chaos. Pick one.

How far will the anti-Trump forces go in crushing their opposition?

‘You’re not entitled your book contract,’ can quickly become ‘United doesn’t have to let you onto its planes’ ‘Marriott doesn’t have to let you stay at its hotels,’ or ‘Visa doesn’t have to let you use its cards.’

And maybe that’s the point.

— Abigail Shrier (@AbigailShrier) January 8, 2021

That tweet is a response to the news: "Simon & Schuster Cancels Plans for Senator Hawley’s Book/The publisher faced calls to drop the Missouri Republican’s upcoming book, 'The Tyranny of Big Tech,' following criticism of his efforts to overturn the presidential election" (NYT). 

“We did not come to this decision lightly,” Simon & Schuster said in a statement. “As a publisher it will always be our mission to amplify a variety of voices and viewpoints: At the same time we take seriously our larger public responsibility as citizens, and cannot support Senator Hawley after his role in what became a dangerous threat.”... 

“This could not be more Orwellian,” he said. “Simon & Schuster is canceling my contract because I was representing my constituents, leading a debate on the Senate floor on voter integrity, which they have now decided to redefine as sedition... We’ll see you in court."... 

The subject of Mr. Hawley’s book... is not about the election or Mr. Trump, but about technology corporations like Google, Facebook and Amazon. Its cancellation was remarkably swift and raised questions about how publishers will approach future books by conservatives who have supported Mr. Trump’s efforts to invalidate the election....

ADDED: Here's Hawley's full statement:

My statement on the woke mob at @simonschuster pic.twitter.com/pDxtZvz5J0

— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) January 7, 2021

I'm not sure what his "First Amendment" theory is, but I'd love to see his explanation. There's a folk meaning of "First Amendment" that simply means "freedom of speech," but Hawley is a Yale Law School graduate who had a clerkship with Chief Justice John Roberts, so we must attribute the highest level of constitutional law understanding to him. I await the explication!

ALSO: Hawley's book about the "tyranny" of Google, Facebook, and Amazon ought to discuss the problem of the repression of freedom of speech, and for all I know, he's got some sophisticated First Amendment theory in there. Send me a PDF of your book, Josh — or just the pages with the First Amendment material. I will give it a sympathetic read!

At the Rime and Hoar Café...

... you can talk all afternoon... preferably about things that are not raised in this morning's posts. Please challenge yourselves to discuss anything other than Trump, the last election, and yesterday's events in the Capitol. There are 7 posts this morning on those topics, so scroll down if you want to talk about that.

It's a new year. What have you been up to? Have you embarked on a wholesome sunrise run routine or anything like that? Are you decluttering and "death cleaning"? Have you read any good books? What TV shows are you following these days? What are you cooking? Are you feeling blue? Are your dogs and cats okay?...

"Even if you believe — as David Bernstein states above — that the election didn’t turn on fraud, you should be concerned that so many people do."

"It’s important... that elections not only be free of fraud, but trusted by the vast majority, even among those who lose. We don’t have that, and the huge number of stories about potential election fraud that were running in mainstream media right up until election day indicates that if Trump had been declared the winner, Democrats would be running around screaming fraud. We need a system that is obviously trustworthy enough that the vast majority of people will trust it, and we certainly don’t have that. Other countries do."

Writes Glenn Reynolds, pointing to this post — also at Instapundit — by David Bernstein. 

From Bernstein's post: "There is no evidence of widespread fraud that could plausibly be said to have cost Trump the election, nor even a single state.... And all that is why Trump’s lawyers lost every single case they brought before judges of all parties and ideologies.... Even if you accept any of the not-completely-crazy theories I’ve seen of how the election was 'stolen,' at best that gets Trump to a narrow victory in the Electoral College. Yet the president continues to insist not just that he won, not just that the election was stolen, but that he won in a 'landslide.'... If the election process is a total fraud, then violence is to be expected. Even in the face of the violence yesterday, Trump, while telling the rioters to go home, also continued to insist that he really won in a landslide, thus continuing to foment violence."

"Cotton appeared to be referring to Hawley, his potential rival for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, whose campaign sent out a fundraising email Wednesday..."

"... promoting his plan to object to Pennsylvania’s electoral votes. The email was sent shortly before a pro-Trump mob stormed the U.S. Capitol, bringing a temporary halt to the counting of the Electoral College vote and leaving offices and hallways in the Capitol ransacked." 

The Hill says, commenting on this tweet from Tom Cotton (which says "while," not "shortly before"):

Some senators, for political gain, misled supporters about their ability to challenge the election results--some even sent out fundraising emails while insurrectionists stormed the Capitol.

That stops now--Republicans ought to focus on countering the Democrats' radical agenda. pic.twitter.com/e0JDg2bsJy

— Tom Cotton (@SenTomCotton) January 7, 2021

"One administration official described Trump’s behavior Wednesday as that of 'a total monster,' while another said the situation was 'insane' and 'beyond the pale.'"

"Fearful that Trump could take actions resulting in further violence and death if he remains in office even for a few days, senior administration officials were discussing Wednesday night whether the Cabinet might invoke the 25th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to force him out, said a person involved in the conversations.... Aides mortified by their boss’s conduct said they were weighing whether to resign or to stay in office to help ensure the transition to the Biden administration.... Considerable internal anger was directed toward chief of staff Mark Meadows, according to four aides, both because of what many view as his incompetence in managing the White House and his willingness to prop Trump up while indulging his false election fraud claims. People who interacted with Trump on Wednesday said they found him in a fragile and volatile state.... As rioters broke through police barricades and occupied the Capitol, paralyzing the business of Congress, aides said Trump resisted entreaties from some of his advisers to condemn the marauders and refused to be reasoned with. 'He kept saying: "The vast majority of them are peaceful. What about the riots this summer? What about the other side? No one cared when they were rioting. My people are peaceful. My people aren’t thugs,"' an administration official said. 'He didn’t want to condemn his people.'... A former senior administration official briefed on the president’s private conversations said: “The thing he was most upset about and couldn’t get over all day was the Pence betrayal. … All day, it was a theme of, ‘I made this guy, I saved him from a political death, and here he stabbed me in the back.'" 

"Aides weigh resignations, removal options as Trump rages against perceived betrayals" (WaPo).

"While this represents the end of the greatest first term in presidential history, it’s only the beginning..."

...fight to ensure that only legal votes were counted. While this represents the end of the greatest first term in presidential history, it’s only the beginning of our fight to Make America Great Again!”

— Dan Scavino🇺🇸🦅 (@DanScavino) January 7, 2021

That's Trump's statement, which, as the NYT puts is, "had to be issued through surrogates since Mr. Trump’s Twitter account was suspended." It "came moments after Vice President Mike Pence affirmed Mr. Biden as the winner of the presidential election shortly before 4 a.m. after the final electoral votes were tallied in a joint session of Congress."